Destroyer Redux

The cost of the Iranian excursion.

15

Comments

Speaking of the destructive nature of this administration, CBS News reoprts: Photos show widespread damage at U.S. positions caused by Iranian attacks.

New photos obtained exclusively by CBS News reveal for the first time the widespread damage and destruction of buildings and vehicles at multiple U.S. positions across the Middle East, as a result of Iranian missile and drone attacks.

[…]

“These are not ‘squirters’ getting through,” the service member added, referencing language used by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after the deadly March 1 attack on Port of Shuaiba in Kuwait that killed six U.S. troops. “We’re not defending these bases. We’re just watching them get destroyed.”

Photos at the link.

Moreover, CBS reports: Pentagon inspector general says $22.3B spent on Iran war munitions has caused “strategic inventory shortfalls”.

In a first-of-its-kind mandatory report to Congress, the inspector said that between Feb. 28 and June 30, Operation Epic Fury (OEF) had an estimated cost of $33.4 billion, with $22.3 billion of that spent on munitions alone.

[…]

It also lists American military assets lost in the war, including four F-15s destroyed, one F-35 damaged, seven KC-135 tanker aircraft damaged and up to 30 MQ-9 Reaper drones destroyed.

All of which is in an effort in which the US has not achieved its strategic goals, and it has created a global economic crisis.

But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

15 responses to “Destroyer Redux”

  1. Charley in Cleveland Avatar
    Charley in Cleveland

    Perhaps this is news now because the Pentagon’s Pete-sanctioned press corp consists of rightwing bloggers and influencers. Kudos to the soon-to-be-fired Pentagon IG for releasing the numbers to Congress. (Yeah, it’s a mandatory reporting, but since January 21, 2025, there is no mandatory anything for the Trump administration. See, e.g., the hole in the ground that used to be the East Wing).

    1
    1. Not only that, but the last Pentagon press briefing was in early May…more than 4 months ago. Mr. Fog of War can’t even bring himself to face his very own collection of kooks and cranks.

  2. The real goal in both of these Destroyer examples is pretty much the same. In the first case Trump gets his name on a national landmark building. In this case he gets to be an Israeli hero, even greater than Pollard, if he succeeds. Looks like he is losing in both cases.

    Steve

  3. I kind of blame Biden. Not as much as Trump, who got us into this idiotic mess, but significantly.

    We’ve seen the Russian military get decimated and stuck in Ukraine because of Ukraine’s drone war, and we’ve known that Iran had a similar capacity and we haven’t worked out how to fight this type of war. And that’s a change in war fighting that happened early enough in the Biden administration that they should have be developing counters to.

    Meanwhile, our dependence on smart bombs means that we aren’t able to fight indefinitely because of a slow, expensive supply chain. That’s a problem that goes back long enough we could blame Biden, Trump and Obama… George W. Bush, too.

    Obviously, Trump bears the majority of the blame for launching a war of choice with a military that just isn’t capable of getting the job done and that doesn’t have the defenses against this new warfare*. I expect any plans and warnings of what our military is currently capable of have been ignored, in favor of feelings about “warrior culture”

    ——
    *: we’ve never been great at achieving our goals through air power alone, so that part isn’t new. Results have been mixed. But, given how the Afghan war went, it’s probably just as well that Trump thinks we can win this with air power.

    ——
    ETA: And Trump will be largely to blame for the military that the next President has to work with, while that President will be to blame for what they do with it.

    2
    1. It would have been a lot more sensible of both the US and Europe to partner more closely with Ukraine on this, and consult them as to the capabilities and countermeasures to both drones and missile strikes, and the combination of both.

      I suspect Pentagon staff analysis was first, to urge avoidance of war with Iran.
      Second, if war was the option, to avoid an attritional slogging match and go all-out.
      Which of course meant land operations.
      Which would be costly and nasty, and the reason for recommending avoidance.

      But, of course, Trump, Hegseth, and Netanyahu “knew better”, the vain fools.
      And fell between two stools.

      1
    2. Our reliance on high technology, high lethality began even further back in the 70s under Carter. Part of the thinking back then is that 1) we can leverage our scientific and technical superiority and 2) require less military personnel. That was part of the unspoken bargain when we ditched the draft and went all-volunteer. Along with the higher tech came much more skilled people.

      We also relied on deterring long conflicts with our technology (as well as alliances, international economic cooperation, and all that good soft stuff of which Trump has no conception).

      The execution of this overall military concept probably reached its effective peak in the 1st Gulf War when we crushed the Iraq military and rescued Kuwait.

      But, as you’ve pointed out, the world has changed. As so has the nature of warfare. It’s kind of a war of attrition again but with machines and not so many people.

      I would it will be interesting so see how it plays out. But then again, I’d rather not be that curious.

      1
      1. I’m pretty certain Ukraine would have preferred not how to find out the hard way how to wage this sort of war.

        The absurd thing is, the Western edge in technology and production should mean we OWN this battle-space.
        In a way, it’s natural extension of precision-guided munitions and sensor ubiquity to scaled deployment.

        The upper-end high tech systems will still be part of the mix, both offensive and defensive.
        As per, in Ukraine, long range ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-missile systems, and other air defences.
        There’s a good reason the Russian air force does not attempt direct bombing of Ukraine, and it’s not drones.
        (Ditto USAF/USNAir re Iran)

        But getting caught with your pants down re drones is really stupid.
        Especially given Ukraine has been trying for some time to give advice on this, and been getting the brush off by the Pentagon.

        1. I could argue the USCW in the 1860s showed the deleterious effect on an army charging fortified positions, even against single shot, muzzle loading guns. And further that anyone paying close attention then, and in later conflicts, could easily have predicted the effects of machineguns on the battlefield.

          And yet the Western Front in WWI.

          I wonder about institutional creeds and the vast sums of money involved in US defense procurement. If the army sent a request for proposals for cheap drones with a small payload, there might not be any takers. Perhaps they’d interest the army instead on a multimillion dollar drone with landing gear, sophisticated computers, radar, IR vision, a large payload of smart missiles and bombs, and a long service lifetime that will require lots and lots of spare parts.

          I don’t know. It rings true.

    3. There’s the irony that it was Israel and the US who developed modern drones for use in war. Along the high tech, high firepower lines both nations favor.

      As to Biden, at least he had the good sense not to get into a war with an enemy like Iran.

      1. Not just Biden, but every US administration going back to Reagan, and ironically including Trump 1.
        Even pre-drones, there was an obvious Iranian threat to the Gulf and the Straits. Drones have dialled it up to 11.

        As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m certain the Pentagon have been saying since about 1980 that to stand any chance of a “win” in a war with Iran entails land operations at scale.
        Which means much blood and sorrow and money.
        Which is why every sentient president has looked at the option and gone “nope”.

        Trump 1 was likely restrained by his admin team, and perhaps by Netanyahu not having become so reckless.

        1. During his first usurpation he might have had a somewhat smaller chip on his shoulder. He definitely had adult supervision. Today he doesn’t. Rubio seems to be trying to blend into the background so no one remember his existence.

          1
  4. @Kathy
    I’m pretty convinced Rubio is trying to avoid both annoying the MAGA-loons and being credible to the “residual sane” GoP after a 2028 “crash-and-burn” either in the election or after it.
    So as to be on the inside track for a nomination in 2032 or 2036, depending on how things play out.

    As for any other vaguely sane: “Elvis has left the building!”
    Even Bessent seems to have lost his grip, and Colby’s “pivot to Asia” has ended up as “pivot to nowhere”.
    (Not that Colby was ever very sensible in the first place)
    At least Bannon is still out of the admin and just gibbering like the Mad God Azathoth in the Outer Voids.
    But hell, we’ve got two years left yet, heaven help us.

  5. Can’t help thinking of two things in this context:
    1) Thalaba the Destroyer
    2) Trump: ” Wanna be a BATTLESHIP!”

    1. Given the kinds of literature I have absorbed over the years, I find it quite remarkable that I have never heard of Thalaba the Destroyer until you mentioned it here. In contrast, I have vaguely heard of Southey, but I couldn’t tell you why. Perhaps in a discussion of Kubla Khan?

  6. Trump and his fans are fond of pointing out how short this war has been (so far) compared to other major wars America has fought. They don’t seem to realise the implications: that maybe this one has years to run.

    In today’s episode of the long-running series “Trump makes noises which reporters pretend are words that mean things”, he’s gibbering about having to make a big decision soon. He might have to “annihilate” Iran, obliterate it totally! Apparently Bessent’s ‘Operation Economic Outcast’, having failed to bring Iran to heel in three weeks, has been dismissed as a failure.